Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 27, 2025

EU rushes to scrap tariffs on US imports in exchange for Trump lowering duties on cars

 The European Union is racing to give President Donald Trump what he wants — wiping out tariffs on US industrial goods in a last-minute push to keep its prized car exports flowing to America, according to a report.

Brussels is set to fast-track legislation this week eliminating those duties after Trump demanded the move as a condition for lowering US tariffs on European automobiles, sources familiar with the matter told Bloomberg News.

The plan also throws in sweeteners for Washington, including preferential tariff rates on seafood and farm products.

President Trump shakes hands with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland last month.AFP via Getty Images

EU officials concede the deal tilts in Trump’s favor, but say the tradeoff is needed to give companies stability after years of tariff threats and regulatory fights.

“It’s a strong, if not perfect deal,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday.

The rush comes as Trump is still threatening fresh penalties on countries that tax online services — a clear shot at Europe’s digital rules targeting US tech giants like Google and Apple.

European cars and parts currently face a punishing 27.5% tariff when shipped to the US. Under the new arrangement, most EU goods would see duties fall to 15%.

But Trump has refused to extend that break to cars until Brussels moves to axe its industrial tariffs.

The US exports a wide range of industrial products to Europe, including aircraft and parts, engines, machinery, semiconductors, steel, industrial chemicals, plastics and automobiles — goods which form the backbone of transatlantic trade.

The US and EU are the world’s largest trading partners, exchanging more than $1.8 trillion in goods and services last year. Germany alone shipped nearly $35 billion in cars and parts across the Atlantic.

If the EU delivers by the end of the month, the 15% tariff on European autos will be applied retroactively to Aug. 1 — critical for Germany, the bloc’s auto powerhouse, which shipped $34.9 billion worth of cars and parts to the US last year.

To meet Trump’s deadline, the European Commission will bypass its usual impact assessment, an almost unheard-of step in EU policymaking, underscoring the urgency of the push.

The maneuver highlights how much leverage Trump has gained over the bloc, forcing it to bend in hopes of securing a fragile truce in the long-running trade war.

“It’s a strong, if not perfect deal,” von der Leyen said of the trade agreement that was struck with the Trump administration.AFP via Getty Images

But with Trump still dangling new threats over tech taxes, even Brussels’ sprint may only buy temporary peace.

Trump has repeatedly wielded tariffs as a weapon, hitting European steel, aluminum and luxury goods since his first term.

His July framework agreement with von der Leyen sketched out the outlines of the emerging deal: Washington would lower tariffs on nearly all European goods to 15% if Brussels dropped its industrial duties and opened its markets wider to US exports.

As part of that pact, the EU also pledged massive energy purchases and fresh investment in the American economy — commitments critics argue tilt heavily toward US priorities.

Still, the car industry remains the flashpoint. Automobiles are one of Europe’s most valuable exports, yet Trump has insisted they remain under higher duties until Brussels acts fully on his terms.

President Donald Trump meets with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (second from left), German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (third from left), French President Emmanuel Macron (second from right) and Finnish President Alexander Stubb (far right).Daniel Torok/White House/UPI/Shutterstock

That hardball stance has fueled anger among European manufacturers, with German business groups warning the bloc is ceding too much ground.

The broader fight over digital policy looms large.

Trump has warned of fresh retaliation against governments that impose online service taxes, a veiled reference to EU laws aimed at curbing the dominance of US tech giants.

That clash over digital sovereignty ensures that even as Brussels races to cut tariffs, another showdown with Washington may be just around the corner.

“President Trump’s trade agreement with the European Union was a historic win that finally restores a level playing field for American industries and workers in trans-Atlantic trade between the world’s two biggest economies,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement.

European cars such as Volkswagen currently face a punishing 27.5% tariff when shipped to the US.AP

“The Administration continues to work closely with EU counterparts to implement our trade agreement as quickly as possible and address other economic matters.”

The Europeans also released a statement on Wednesday.

“We reached a negotiated solution to avoid a lose-lose tariff escalation, giving firms clarity and predictability while protecting European jobs and supply chains,” a Commission spokesperson told The Post.

“By securing a clear 15% tariff ceiling, we delivered immediate relief for exporters, while fully preserving the EU’s regulatory autonomy.”

https://nypost.com/2025/08/27/business/eu-looks-to-scrap-us-imports-tariffs-as-part-of-trump-deal/

Johns Hopkins providers leave UnitedHealthcare as talks stall

 Doctors at Johns Hopkins Medicine hospitals and facilities have stopped taking in-network insurance from UnitedHealthcare after Hopkins and the national health insurer failed to reach a contract by a Monday deadline.

Just under 60,000 patients on UnitedHealthcare plans see Hopkins providers in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Hopkins said all of its providers or facilities, except for Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in Florida, are considered out-of-network by UnitedHealthcare as of Monday.

“This means that UnitedHealthcare may cover less, or none, of the care patients with UnitedHealthcare insurance receive from Johns Hopkins providers or at Johns Hopkins locations,” the health system said on its website.

https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/johns-hopkins-providers-leave-unitedhealthcare

Pharmacologic Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes, Pros and Cons

 Bryan KuoM.D., and Josephine H. LiM.D.

DOI: 10.1056/EVIDra2400265

Abstract

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a complex chronic disorder with an increasing prevalence. Treatment of T2D involves both lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions aimed at lowering blood glucose levels to help counteract the negative effects of long-term hyperglycemia. The range of pharmacologic treatments for T2D has grown substantially, with newer agents demonstrating not only glucose-lowering efficacy, but also reductions in long-term cardiometabolic complications. This review discusses the newest pharmacologic agents for the treatment of T2D and the evidence regarding their cardiometabolic benefits. We highlight key considerations for their use based on patient characteristics and clinical context. In addition, we discuss emerging pharmacologic therapies that target the underlying pathogenesis of T2D, underscoring ongoing advances in diabetes care.

Pentagon Drops Coverage of GLP-1 Weight Loss Meds for Medicare-Eligible Retirees

 Military retirees and family members on Tricare for Life, and civilians with access to military hospitals and clinics, will lose coverage for weight loss drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound starting Aug. 31, according to the Defense Health Agency.

Military health officials said earlier this month that Medicare-eligible retirees -- those who use Tricare for Life -- and Defense Department civilians and others with access to military hospitals but who aren't on Tricare will no longer be able to get these popular medications through the DoD health system.

Beneficiaries with Tricare PrimeTricare Select and premium-based Tricare plans will continue to have coverage, but they must meet certain clinical criteria, such as being obese or having obstructive sleep apnea related to their weight, according to the Defense Health Agency.

Read Next: Cancer in Military Pilots and Aircrews Will Be Studied Under Newly Signed Law

Tricare for Life, or TFL, provides secondary health coverage to military retirees and their family members on Medicare. As wraparound coverage, TFL was covering those medications, known as glucagon-like peptide-1, or GLP-1, agonists for weight loss in eligible beneficiaries.

But Medicare covers GLP-1 medications only to treat Type 2 diabetes and for cardiovascular disease that may be worsened by a patient's excess weight. It does not cover the drugs prescribed specifically for obesity.

Tricare for Life beneficiaries prescribed these medications for diabetes will retain coverage, according to the Defense Department. Common GLP-1 drugs for diabetes include Ozempic and Mounjaro.

Last December, the Biden administration published an interim rule to allow Medicare and Medicaid to cover GLP-1 agonists for weight loss. The anticipated cost of the coverage for the federal government of the change was $48 billion over 10 years, according to a University of Chicago estimate.

The Trump administration issued its final rule on 2026 Medicare drug coverage in April and excluded the interim rule's provision that would have allowed coverage of GLP-1 medications for weight loss.

Tricare officials said the Defense Health Agency is eliminating coverage for its Tricare for Life beneficiaries and others to "align with federal coverage requirements."

"Your provider can work with you to explore all options and determine the best approach for your health needs," Tricare officials said in a news release. "Talk to your provider. You can also visit Health and Wellness for more details on resources that can help you reach your goals."

GLP-1 medications have been used to treat diabetes for nearly 20 years. They mimic a hormone that is naturally released by the body after eating, triggering the release of insulin from the pancreas, controlling blood sugar levels.

The medications also suppress hunger and slow the digestion process, leading patients to feel full on smaller portions or for longer periods of time after eating.

While patients report weight loss and often improvement in mental health and cognition, these medications can have side effects that include nausea and vomiting, muscle loss and sagging skin.

The Defense Department has not released an exact accounting of the number of GLP-1 prescriptions written for weight loss, but a 2024 report noted that, by late 2023, the drugs made up roughly one-third of all prescription weight-loss medications for active-duty military personnel.

According to the report, 67.3% of active-duty troops were overweight in 2021, with 18.8% of those service members considered clinically obese.

The DoD began including weight-loss drugs in Tricare's formulary in 2018, adding semaglutide, a type of GLP-1 agonist, in 2021.

The out-of-pocket costs for such medications run between $350 and $500 per month, according to the manufacturers.

The Department of Veterans Affairs covers the medications for weight loss for veterans who already have tried less-pricey medications without success; those who also participate in a whole-health approach, including lifestyle modifications and exercise; and those with a body-mass index of 27 or more with at least one weight-related condition or illness; or a BMI of 30 or more.

The Defense Health Agency said beneficiaries affected by the change in coverage will be notified by mail.

"People are taking GLP-1 drugs -- like Wegovy and Zepbound -- for weight loss now more than ever," Defense Health Agency Chief Medical Officer Dr. Paul Cordts said in a statement. "It's important to understand how -- and why -- Tricare covers these drugs, based on your condition and status."

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/08/19/pentagon-drops-coverage-of-glp-1-weight-loss-meds-medicare-eligible-retirees.html

Menopause misinformation is harming care

 

Marie K Christakis1 2, assistant professor,
Taylor Roebotham1 2, clinical fellow,
Stephanie Sterry3, general practitioner,
Olexandra Koshkina4, assistant professor


Symptoms should be prioritised ahead of testing

A societal transformation of attitudes and beliefs surrounding menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) has outpaced provider education, leaving primary care specialties unprepared to deliver this care.1 In the UK, MHT is more commonly referred to as hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Internationally, however, the term MHT is increasingly preferred because it more accurately reflects the full range of treatments used to manage symptoms and health effects of menopause, emphasising the importance of individualised care.2

A cultural shift has arisen owing to several converging factors: an increased awareness of the potential benefits of MHT,3 a better understanding of the risk profile of MHT,4 and a destigmatisation of menopause through press, social media, and celebrity coverage.5 As women are increasingly empowered to seek relief for menopausal symptoms, there has been a sharp rise in services that aim to address this growing demand. Although no global quantitative data are available regarding the increased uptake of these services, a recent Canadian report of aggregate health insurance claims indicates that the use of MHT in women aged 45 to 65 increased by 21% from 2020 to 2023.6 Further, studies in Sweden,7 Wales,8 and England9 demonstrate a substantial rise in the prescribing of MHT—up to 50% over recent years. Digital health technologies that are available direct to consumer (such as mobile applications, telehealth clinics, podcasts, and websites) have targeted menopause management, raising concerns about the reliability and potential commercial bias of the information.1011 A decade ago, the global “femtech” market was valued at $500m (£375m; €430m); today, it is estimated at $28bn and is continuing to grow.12 One of the most troubling trends arising from this surge is the promotion of routine hormone panel testing for the evaluation of menopausal symptoms—often including serum, salivary, or urine assays for oestradiol, progesterone, testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, thyroid hormones, and even cortisol. These tests can cost hundreds of dollars and are marketed to patients and clinicians as necessary for “individualising” hormone therapy.1314 Many women who access this type of testing are unaware of the limited supporting evidence and are influenced by trust in their healthcare provider.15 In reality, these tests are of limited clinical use because there is no clearly defined therapeutic window for MHT, and some testing techniques do not offer accurate or precise assessment of hormone levels.16

Beyond questions of clinical validity, the utility of hormone testing is constrained by the physiology of the menopause transition. Perimenopause is characterised by highly variable day to day fluctuations in oestradiol and follicle stimulating hormone levels that contribute to vasomotor symptoms, sleep disturbance, mood changes, and cognitive concerns. Observance of “normal” hormone levels can lead to underdiagnosis and undertreatment of women with symptoms. Postmenopause is defined by a predictable drop in oestradiol and rise in follicle stimulating hormone; however, there is no definitive test to differentiate this from perimenopause. The principle of evidence based practice is that a test should only be done if the result will directly guide patient care. For perimenopause and menopause, hormone testing offers no reliable way to determine who will benefit from treatment, when the final menstrual period will occur, or whether it is safe to discontinue contraception. Clinical guidelines from the British Menopause Society, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, The Menopause Society, and Endocrine Society agree: in women over age 45 presenting with validated symptoms of menopause, including menstrual irregularity, menopause is a clinical diagnosis, and hormone testing is unnecessary.1718192021

Despite this, many women now present with detailed hormone panels from wellness providers or online services. When this testing is used to make treatment decisions, it can mislead women into believing they are not candidates for MHT or prompt the use of unsupported interventions.22 In our experience, these panels are often used to justify taking compounded hormone regimens or supplements based on marginal deviations from hormone thresholds that are not grounded in evidence.1623 Compounded bioidentical hormone therapy lacks standardisation and regulatory oversight and has not been tested for safety or efficacy.23 There is concern that inconsistencies in the quantities of oestrogen or progestogen in compounded bioidentical hormone therapy regimens can result in endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma, particularly in women with an intact uterus who are receiving inadequate progestogen.24

Symptom driven approach needed

There is a growing recognition that menopause care is most effective when grounded in an approach that is symptom driven and patient centred. Vasomotor symptoms, insomnia, mood changes, and vaginal dryness are best assessed by a thorough clinical history rather than by hormone levels. For women under 60 or within 10 years of menopause onset, MHT is the most effective treatment for vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms, with a favourable safety profile in appropriately selected patients.25 While hormone panel testing and associated misinformation can muddy the waters of clinical decision making, we maintain that treatment decisions should be guided by clinical response and patient preferences.

Routine hormone panel testing in the management of menopause symptoms is not supported by current evidence and does not improve care—whether before starting MHT, or to titrate dosing.26 Until we can establish individualised target hormone levels by accounting for pharmacokinetics, receptor specific pharmacodynamics, and differentiating between endogenous and exogenous hormones, there is no role for commercial hormonal panel testing to guide therapy. In the meantime, such testing offers only a false sense of precision. Although innovation is needed, the normalisation of hormone panel testing could be a symptom of a larger problem: the commercialisation of women’s health and a movement away from evidence based practice. For midlife women, effective treatment begins not with numbers, but with listening.

Footnotes